In the fifth precept sura, meraya and majja are kinds of alcoholic beverages. In some modern translations, Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā, is rendered more broadly, variously, as, intoxicants, liquor and drugs, etc.

I.e. The Wiki says the 5. Percept does not say anything about drugs as intoxicants. Is this true according to what has been discussed in this section (forum)?

David N. Snyder wrote:Most street drugs today were not around at that time and fermented drinks were the more common intoxicant.

Is it a reasonable assumption that marijuana was so uncommon as to not be worth mentioning in the precept? According to Wikipedia, it's been in use for Hindu rites since 1000 BC, and legally used for religious purposes today.

I'm pretty sure that even at the time when the Buddha was living there were more intoxicants than just alcohol. So, the Buddha first mentioned the two most common intoxicants, liquor and fermented liquor, and than he concluded in general: majja, (all) intoxicants that make one heedless.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

I agree with Wiki, its text is about refrain from alcohol or carelessness from alcohol. This translation seems also to be supported by other different Buddhist traditions. E.g. the Chinese Mahayana texts just say 'Do not drink alcohol'. And I think the 5 Precept should not be generalised for the good intentions of translator, it should be left to the reader to investigate what the Precepts means for the individual.

Caraka wrote:I agree with Wiki, its text is about refrain from alcohol or carelessness from alcohol. This translation seems also to be supported by other different Buddhist traditions. E.g. the Chinese Mahayana texts just say 'Do not drink alcohol'. And I think the 5 Precept should not be generalised for the good intentions of translator, it should be left to the reader to investigate what the Precepts means for the individual.

Thanks for helping me out in this, all of you.

this is where the great standard comes in!

Mahāpadesa - The Great Reasons - VinMv.6.40.1 (Vin1.6.40.1) wrote:Now at that time uncertainty arose in the sāmaṇas with regard to several things: "What does the fortunate one allow? What is not allowed?" So they relayed the issue to the fortunate One:(The Buddha) "Meditators, whatever I have not forbidden, saying, 'This is not a proper thing for you to do,' if it fits in with what is not a proper thing for you to do, if it goes against what is a proper thing, then, this too is not a proper thing for you to do.

"Whatever I have not forbidden, saying, 'This is not a proper thing for you to do,' if it fits in with what is a proper thing for you to do, if it goes against what is not a proper thing, then, this too is a proper thing for you to do.

"And whatever I have not allowed, saying, 'This is a proper thing for you to do,' if it fits in with what is not a proper thing for you to do, if it goes against what is a proper thing, then, this too is not a proper thing for you to do.

"And whatever I have not allowed, saying, 'This is a proper thing for you to do,' if it fits in with what is a proper thing for you to do, if it goes against what is not a proper thing, then, this is a proper thing for you to do."

the rule is then applied (with correct reasoning) to any substance used recreationally for intoxication which results in a lack of heedfulness on the path.no good intention needed, only cross referencing what is and is not going to be covered by such a rule.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

else why mention that alcohol does these things? It isn't the substance, it's the effect, isn't it? So, with respect to such negligent excess we might for example try reading it as "alcohol-esque effects" rather than "these three drinks, alone", which seems to be where you're headed...

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Where is this connection between the Percept and The Great Reasons of truth? Secondly, It seems that your reasoning should also be my reasoning for some reason, why

where do you get "the Great Reasons of truth"?you have inserted "of truth" for some reason, but Dhamma could be rendered as natural law which would be fitting in the context.The text is about what is and is not allowable, not truth. it is part of the Vinaya Nikaya (discipline collection) so is directly relevant to the precepts.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

daverupa wrote:else why mention that alcohol does these things? It isn't the substance, it's the effect, isn't it? So, with respect to such negligent excess we might for example try reading it as "alcohol-esque effects" rather than "these three drinks, alone", which seems to be where you're headed...

it certainly is about the effects, if we look into the vinaya there are reasons why alcohol can be allowable, but for specific reasons and doses for mixing. none of the reasons are for or doses make it possible for intoxication.

Regarding "Māda" I included that (and Majjapa) in the word breakdown as it seamed a reasonable alternative reading,

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

The majjapamādaṭṭhānā part is neither this or that, and can not be easily translated, eg. Pamada and Mada can not be two different words. It is either Pamada or Mada, if it is Mada, it is again Majjapa not Majja. The only exception must be if a Pali word like Pamada can be extracted to more than one Pali word. E.g. Pamada and Mada (I'm not talking about extracting a Pali word to more than one meaning here). If so, I would like to know why?

Surāmeraya can be translated straight out, at last it seems so now.

else why mention that alcohol does these things? It isn't the substance, it's the effect, isn't it? So, with respect to such negligent excess we might for example try reading it as "alcohol-esque effects" rather than "these three drinks, alone", which seems to be where you're headed...

For this post I was commited only to the translation, not the faith we might put in the words, and I don't know why you try to corner me in an belief that is entirely about your thinking about me.

Caraka wrote:For this post I was commited only to the translation, not the faith we might put in the words

How are these different? Unless you mean that it is the transliteration you sought?

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Caraka wrote:The majjapamādaṭṭhānā part is neither this or that, and can not be easily translated, eg. Pamada and Mada can not be two different words. It is either Pamada or Mada, if it is Mada, it is again Majjapa not Majja. The only exception must be if a Pali word like Pamada can be extracted to more than one Pali word. E.g. Pamada and Mada (I'm not talking about extracting a Pali word to more than one meaning here). If so, I would like to know why?

Surāmeraya can be translated straight out, at last it seems so now.it can be easily translated.

Surāmeraya is still two words not one and the conjoined words like this still retain their meaning in pali.translation requires context so a perfect translation of a word may be completely wrong in a particular context.the task of a translator is to extract what is meant, not a litteral word for word meaning which is not always possible! look at English and German, there are some words in German English has absolutely no equivalent for and a sentence is needed. When it comes to spiritual texts the problem is expanded due to time and cultural norms no longer present. What may seam quite literal has other passages which expand and clarify the meaning of a phrase so need consideration when it is to do with putting something into practice, such as precepts.

particularly regarding precepts a wider looking glass than what the words alone say is needed as it is something advised and taken up which does not neccesarily show the full context alone.

Saṅkhitta Aṭṭhaṅguposatha Sutta - The Observance Day Endowed with Eight Factors - AN8.41 wrote: ‘"'All of their lives the worthy ones have given up recreational intoxicants that lead to carelessness, abstain from that which intoxicates, and causes of carelessness."All of you, for this day and night, should declare to give up recreational intoxicants that lead to carelessness, abstain from that which intoxicates, and causes of carelessness.So for all of this period, imitating the worthy ones in this regard, the Observance Day will have been fully observed by you.”This is the fifth factor the observance day is endowed with.

Last edited by Cittasanto on Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

How are these different? Unless you mean that it is the transliteration you sought?

Why don't you think there are no difference?

Well, your phrase "faith we might put in the words" is less than clear, so let's back up to that for a moment; what did you mean?

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]